The Law Society Consumers Complaints Services that acts for the Protection of Lawyers
"Solicitors from Hell"
17 August 2006

Zahida Manzoor CBE
Legal Services Ombudsman
3rd Floor
Sunlight House
Quay Street
Manchester M3 3JZ

Your ref: 35295

Dear Ms Manzoor

Re: Richard Hegarty, Chair of the Compliance Board

Thank you for your recent letter dated 9th August '06 and I take note this letter will not be answered and just put in my 'file'. That appears to be just about what has been happening to all my letters since your report that was dated 18 January '05.

However, I have decided to write this letter to give my thoughts and show my contempt of how you carry out your 'investigations'. You will probably say it is a case of 'sour grapes' but no, in my case I supplied documentary evidence to support every claim or accusation I may have made and you failed to discredit or dispute any evidence or anything I said. On Richard Hegarty's side it appears no evidence, although you don't admit this, was forthcoming even though you criticized the CCS for lack of contact with him.

Regarding your 'criticism' concerning the 'lack of contact' with Richard Hegarty, you and the CCS have based your decision on assumptions and as the Law Society said that he (Richard Hegarty) had 'indicated' what his version of the contents of that evening 'phone call was I can only assume that between your 'report' (18/1/05) and the CCS's 'response' (one year later 18/1/06) while you were 'colluding' with the CCS, they would have informed you of just what it was that Richard Hegarty had 'indicated'. Don't let us lose sight of your insistence on 'unbiased' and 'transparency' during an investigation!

Let me once again indulge in my favourite past time, quoting you; "Complainants have to be pretty persistent to get through the very complicated process. I often say that they must have persistent genes. I wonder what percentage of complaints do not make it off first base. In these cases we are really looking at the reduction of access to justice for them". Let me further quote your advice for clients who believe they've had a rough deal, you say; "Be persistent. Remember it's your right to have your complaint investigated and you should pursue it because, hopefully, it can be mediated and conciliated to everyone's satisfaction". Now let me quote from your 'Little Blue Rule Book' that you send to everybody who refers a complaint to your office; "What the Ombudsman will do is check that all your complaints were addressed and that this was done within a reasonable time".

Come on you use the words 'justice', 'reasonable time', conciliation' and you blather out the words 'unbiased', 'transparency', 'fairness', you stood in parliament giving 'promises' and 'undertakings' about 'enforcing' rule 15 including giving training to law firms who do not have a 'complaints procedure' in place. Just what are you, some sort of sadistic maniac who gives the impression you are running an 'unbiased' appeal procedure but from behind the scenes you are running a 'lawyers protection racket'?

Let us look at your 'attributes' that no doubt 'Chuckling Charlie' saw you possess.
1 You are a 'liar'; you make Kamlesh Balh appear to be honest which it was stated in her case it "...leaves a question mark over the standards of the profession..."
2 Second only to being a liar you are one King Size 'hypocrite' for when you stood in parliament on 4th May 2004 you had already failed to honour the promises and undertakings you gave in answers to questions at that time.
3 You are guilty of 'maladministration' by allowing the Law Society rules to be misused and ignored, you conspired with the CCS to violate the law by hiding/withholding 'available information' and you failed to take any action when the CCS did not comply with your instructions concerning 'Section 23 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990'.
4 You are guilty of 'collusion' with the Law Society to arrange the outcome of investigations for the sole purpose of protecting members of the Law Society.
5 You are guilty of 'sexual discrimination' where you clearly treated a woman in an identical scenario more favorably than you did me.
6 You are guilty of 'intimidation' by accusing me of a 'serious allegation' in a threatening attempt to force me into withdrawing it and you then 'personally' used that 'serious allegation' as you say, to withdraw my rights to the services of an Ombudsman including you, rather than concerning yourself with my anxieties and concerns, used this 'serious allegation' at the fourth time I had made it, as a 'guise' to refuse to answer any of my questions which you had also done in several previous letters about how you and the Law Society had carried out the investigation into my complaint.

As usual I will publish this letter on the internet which as you know will be seen all over the world, if you consider it to be 'defamatory' and/or a 'defamation of character' I challenge you, if you have the balls, to take me to the High Court. On the other hand you can ignore me just as you have done in previous letters which will be an admittance of there is a 'Lawyer Protection Racket' in existence which you are clearly a key part of.

Yours sincerely

B R Gray